linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] Revert "oom: give the dying task a higher priority"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110328122847.GB1892@barrios-desktop>
Date:	Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:28:47 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] Revert "oom: give the dying task a higher priority"

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 06:48:13PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi
> 
> > @@ -434,9 +452,17 @@ static int oom_kill_task(struct task_struct *p)
> >                 K(get_mm_counter(p->mm, MM_FILEPAGES)));
> >         task_unlock(p);
> >  
> > -       p->rt.time_slice = HZ; <<---- THIS
> > +
> >         set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
> >         force_sig(SIGKILL, p);
> > +
> > +       /*
> > +        * We give our sacrificial lamb high priority and access to
> > +        * all the memory it needs. That way it should be able to
> > +        * exit() and clear out its resources quickly...
> > +        */
> > +       boost_dying_task_prio(p, mem);
> > +
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> > 
> > At that time, I thought that routine is meaningless in non-RT scheduler.
> > So I Cced Peter but don't get the answer.
> > I just want to confirm it.
> > 
> > Do you still think it's meaningless? 
> 
> In short, yes.
> 
> 
> > so you remove it when you revert 93b43fa5508?
> > Then, this isn't just revert patch but revert + killing meaningless code patch.
> 
> If you want, I'd like to rename a patch title. That said, we can't revert
> 93b43fa5508 simple cleanly, several patches depend on it. therefore I
> reverted it manualy. and at that time, I don't want to resurrect
> meaningless logic. anyway it's no matter. Luis is preparing new patches.
> therefore we will get the same end result. :)

I don't mind it, either. :)
I just want to make sure the meaningless logic.
Thanks.

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/